Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-24-2011, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But he apparently didn't read the same passage in Tacitus that arnoldo referred to.

If you show me that he didn't read the same passage, I will eat humble pie and apologize profusely.

This is what Julian wrote in Against the Galileans

Quote:

. . .Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement. As for purity of life you do not know whether he so much as mentioned it; but you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews, overturning temples and altars,63 and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics,64 because they did not wail over the corpse 65 in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius 66 and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

You can see that Julian's point is that Jesus and Paul were insignificant, the sort of religious charlatans who would be happy to delude maidservants and slaves and women. He says that none of the well know writers of the time even mentioned them.

Tacitus was a well known writer. What do you conclude from this?

arnoldo proposed the well known story from Tacitus as an answer to Julian. If arnoldo is correct, it would appear that Julian had not read this section of Tacitus, which makes it highly improbable that the section of Tacitus was available to Julian.

Now this is all a matter of probability and interpretation, hardly proof, but it is the sort of intertextual evidence that scholars consider.

I think that Julian's argument is that the people converted to Christianity by Jesus and Paul were insignificant people unknown to the secular writers of the time. Paul and Jesus, according to Julian, targeted gullible nobodies, they never dreamt that they were starting a movement that would one day take over the Empire.

If I'm right, I don't think that the Tacitus passage and other mentions of Jesus by secular writers would undermine Julian's argument.

Andrew Criddle

J-D · 10-24-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If two textually different versions of the same document exist, I can see how that raises additional questions, but I don't see how it is grounds for arriving at a different general evaluation of the document.

Then, does it follow that two versions of the same automobile repair manual, one which included the engine, and one which omitted reference to the engine, would be evaluated as being of approximately equal value?

An automobile manual which omits reference to the engine is obviously flawed, and knowing whether there is another version of the manual in existence that includes reference to the engine is irrelevant to this evaluation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

How about two documents, both claiming to represent Socrates famous dialogue with Gorgias by Plato? One of them includes Callicles' criticism of Socrates, the other omits this section of the text.

Would you suggest that such an omission would not impede a "general evaluation of the document"?

The content of each document is relevant to evaluation of the document, but what is the relevance of the bare fact that there exist two different versions? If you had read, studied, and formed a view about one of the two hypothetical versions of that dialogue, how would you change that view if you were told 'but there's another version which is different'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Here is the OP:
Is HJ not the more likely overall explanation, meaning, is not an historical person, an actual living human being, a more likely representative of the character, Jesus of Nazareth, described in the gospels, including Mark?

To answer that OP in the affirmative, one ought, it seems to me, have some evidence of the human qualities of this character, elaborated in the gospel according to Mark.

I have not attempted to answer the question because, as I explained much earlier, it is inadequately specified. It makes no sense to me take a position on the likelihood of an explanation when it has never been made clear what it is that is to be explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Instead, what one finds is a dearth of reference to Jesus' humanity, within Mark, and, beginning with the very first sentence of the gospel, an emphasis on defining Jesus' mythical character. But, then, on closer inspection, we find, that not only is the first sentence elaborating the mythical, rather than historical nature of Jesus, but further, this very verse is presented to us, in two completely different versions, as though, at least one of them, or perhaps both, versions, had been tampered with, since the time of Mark's original composition.

The question raised by me, is simple: If this source of information about Jesus' presumed, genuinely human aspect, as suggested by the OP, includes the gospel of Mark, then, why should not this passage, Mark 1:1, be considered as evidence of myth, rather than history, examining not only the meaning of the text itself, but based also upon the fact that our extant copies present such mutually exclusive, contradictory, opening statements?

Some of the statements in Mark using the name Jesus are not possible descriptions of a human being, while other of the statements in Mark using the name Jesus are possible descriptions of a human being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I know that a text which describes a son of God cannot be literally accurate, and it makes no difference one way or the other whether there's a parallel version which omits the 'son of God' reference.

Same apply for "daughter of God"?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Do you feel the same way about two manuscripts, one which elaborates Euripides' explanation that Helen was the daughter of Zeus, another omitting this piece of data?

I am not familiar with the details of the explanation you refer to, but I don't see how the bare fact of the existence of the second manuscript affects the general evaluation of the first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

J-D · 10-24-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

We have no data, Archibald.

Can't you see that?

We have no evidence, outside of Mark (and the other apologetic literature) that Jesus "actually lived".

There is no problem with your BELIEF that Jesus actually lived, but that's all it is, a belief, unaccompanied by external data, verifying this belief.

Therefore, in answer to your question, NO, HJ is not the more likely overall explanation, for there is no data in support of this hypothesis, that Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine human being, rather than a fictional character from a story.

On the contrary, all the gospels, including Mark, are filled up with evidence of the mythical character of Jesus....

That is the PRECISE point.

There is NO credible data for an "historical Jesus".

HJers are arguing from SILENCE.

We have DATA for Myth Jesus.

MJers are NOT arguing from silence.

The EXTANT Codices were KNOWN by the Public in antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels was the Child of a Ghost, that WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended and it was PUBLISHED PUBLICLY and accepted in antiquity.

Jesus was a PHANTOM and it was PUBLISHED in EXTANT Codices of antiquity.

The disciples did BELIEVE Jesus was a SPIRIT when they saw him WALKING on the sea in the Gospels.

Mark 6

Quote:

.....about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out: 50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid.

Matthew 14

Quote:

25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit and they cried out for fear. 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid...

We have the DATA for MYTH JESUS.

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'credible data', 'historical Jesus', 'HJers', 'myth Jesus', and 'MJers'.

tanya · 10-24-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

If I'm right, I don't think that the Tacitus passage and other mentions of Jesus by secular writers would undermine Julian's argument.

Hi Andrew!

Did I misunderstand, something, somewhere along the line?

I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression that the 11th century Medicean manuscript of Tacitus' work, originally composed about 115CE, made mention of Chrestus, or perhaps Chrestiani, not Jesus, or Christians.

I cannot distinguish the difference between χρηστός, the good, and χριστὸς, the annointed.

Is there a difference? Just one vowel? Is this just a misunderstanding, particularly on my part, of confusion caused by my lack of skill with Greek?

Is it the case that Tacitus' work is regarded then, as referring to Jesus, the anointed, and not, some "good" person(s), or folks who claimed to be good?

Unless this Tacitus passage is confirmed by you to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, I am unaware of any other citation describing Jesus, apart from the gospels/epistles that is, the new testament: "other mentions"...

mountainman · 10-24-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is what Julian wrote in Against the Galileans

To be more specific, this is not what Julian wrote, but what Bishop Cyril of Alexandria claimed Julian wrote. The source text is actually "Against Julian" and has been reconstructed on the premise that Cyril preserved Julian's claims accurately. This small fact may make no difference to those who trust the integrity of the 5th century Alexandrian Bishop Cyril.

arnoldo · 10-24-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.....Very interesting - if Julian did not know this passage in Tacitus, this would confirm the suspicion that Tacitus in fact wrote nothing about Jesus, and this is a later interpolation.

And what else Toto? What other passage did Julian NOT know?

Julian did NOT know of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

Now, we know that Eusebius did NOT write all of "Church History" if he wrote anything at all.

Based on Julian's challenge, "Church History", wholly or in part, was MANIPULATED or written AFTER 362 CE and AFTER the death of Eusebius.

The failure of the Emperor Julian's to reference Joesphus's account of Jesus could be an argument for interpolation. However, it appears one other writer living before Julian did refer to Josephus's account of Jesus which weakens the interpolation argument. Origen (184/5–253/4) wrote the following in his writing entitled, Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, Book X:Chapter 17. The Brethren of Jesus.

Quote:

And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/jo...n:Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, Book

aa5874 · 10-24-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think that Julian's argument is that the people converted to Christianity by Jesus and Paul were insignificant people unknown to the secular writers of the time. Paul and Jesus, according to Julian, targeted gullible nobodies, they never dreamt that they were starting a movement that would one day take over the Empire...

The argument is about Jesus and Paul.

Why are you attempting to completely mis-represent what is written?

The Galileans supposedly converted WOMEN and men.

"Against the Galileans"

Quote:

The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius 66 and Sergius.67

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters....

The challenge to find well-known writer is not about the WOMEN and men supposedly converted by the Galileans, the challenge is to find well-known writers who wrote about ONE of the MEN, Paul or Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew criddle

...If I'm right, I don't think that the Tacitus passage and other mentions of Jesus by secular writers would undermine Julian's argument.

Andrew Criddle

Your are DEAD wrong. Tacitus did NOT even mention any character called Jesus.

Why are you are making these BLATANT errors when you KNEW in advance that Tacitus NEVER mentioned a character called Jesus?

Why, Why???

You KNOW that in gMark and gLuke there was ANOTHER person using the name Christ when the supposed Jesus REFUSED to let any one know he was Christ.

See Mark 9.38 and Luke 9.49. There was ANOTHER person called Christ NOT Jesus during the reign of Tiberius.

And further, the challenge by Julian implies that "Church History" was probably NOT WRITTEN or was interpolated with the claim that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

archibald · 10-25-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

A figure like this, a god who had descended to earth in the form of a man, about whose early life very little is known or described until the time of his supposed preaching, who didn't write anything himself, who performed numerous miracles, who appeared in visions and in the flesh to his followers after his death. Does this really strike you as all that unusual?

yes.

Well, then you are not thinking straight. That sort of thing is common as muck. There is no way around this. If you think it's unusual (or indeed mutually exclusive), you are wrong. Google (or read up on) 'people thought to have been divine', 'miracle workers', 'eschatological prophets' or 'messianic claimants'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

No idea why you write:
"...by Paul as being before him closer still."
you have some evidence of that?

The writer says there were, and there is no good reason to prefer to think it more likely that there weren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Before, I was lost.

Now, I am atop the north pole in a blizzard without gps.

"...it could easily refer to someone believed to have actually lived..."
YES.

It sure could, Archibald.

You are correct. IT COULD have referred to someone believed to have actually lived.

I cannot refute that notion.

But, Archibald, the thesis of this thread, if I have not misunderstood it, is:
HJ as more likely overall explanation,

NOT

Jesus could have been someone believed to have actually lived.

problem: "believed", now we must evaluate Mark's motive in writing, and of course, we have no way of doing so;

problem: "actually lived", we can obtain precisely the same result, by rewriting the interpretation of Mark 1:1 as follows:

"believed to have actually been a fictional character", without changing the meaning of even one line of the accompanying text found in Mark.

We have no data, Archibald.

Can't you see that?

We have no evidence, outside of Mark (and the other apologetic literature) that Jesus "actually lived".

There is no problem with your BELIEF that Jesus actually lived, but that's all it is, a belief, unaccompanied by external data, verifying this belief.

Therefore, in answer to your question, NO, HJ is not the more likely overall explanation, for there is no data in support of this hypothesis, that Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine human being, rather than a fictional character from a story.

On the contrary, all the gospels, including Mark, are filled up with evidence of the mythical character of Jesus.

My point, to which you appear to not have an answer, is simply that it is more common for religous believers to write about their supposed recent prophets/leaders because they were supposed to have existed than for them to believe otherwize. It's an objective observation. The sort of thing that's in the NT easily fits a common mould. The alternative, that all these guys were writing about someone they did not believe existed, is the more unusual and less parsimonius and unevidenced explanation, particularly when it has to discount a number of sources, starting with Paul, because we should not forget that the 'gospel writers as mythicists' hypothesis rests on 'Paul as mythicist' also. Given that there is no actual clear evidence (bar modern speculations) that any of these people were mythicists, and indeed that anyone else was, or that anyone read their stories as pure myth, the hypothesis is much less parsimonius. In the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary, that is, on its own, one good, rational reason not to prefer it. Mythicism repeatedly bends over backwards in numerous ways to explain away ancient texts which when treated objectively in other circumstances, would simply be taken as more indicative that some middle eastern fakir had come and gone. Mythicism requires more unevidenced speculations. Beyond that, one cannot say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

no, sorry to be so dull..

Sai Baba. The original one, not the reincarnated one.

maryhelena · 10-25-2011, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

My point, to which you appear to not have an answer, is simply that it is more common for religous believers to write about their supposed recent prophets/leaders because they were supposed to have existed than for them to believe otherwize. It's an objective observation. The sort of thing that's in the NT easily fits a common mould. The alternative, that all these guys were writing about someone they did not believe existed, is the more unusual and less parsimonius and unevidenced explanation, particularly when it has to discount a number of sources, starting with Paul, because we should not forget that the 'gospel writers as mythicists' hypothesis rests on 'Paul as mythicist' also. Given that there is no actual clear evidence (bar modern speculations) that any of these people were mythicists, and indeed that anyone else was, or that anyone read their stories as pure myth, the hypothesis is much less parsimonius. In the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary, that is, on its own, one good, rational reason not to prefer it. Mythicism repeatedly bends over backwards in numerous ways to explain away ancient texts which when treated objectively in other circumstances, would simply be taken as more indicative that some middle eastern fakir had come and gone. Mythicism requires more unevidenced speculations. Beyond that, one cannot say. There is nothing unusual in my approach. It just isn't prevalent here.

Very nice, archibald - next step? Start looking for historical figures that could have been the models, the inspiration, for that gospel ahistorical JC story. Looking for some version of a cherry-picked gospel JC type figure is a waste of time, can't be done. That assumed historical gospel JC figure is a red-herring - don't get waylaid.....

archibald · 10-25-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Very nice, archibald - next step? Start looking for historical figures that could have been the models, the inspiration, for that gospel ahistorical JC story....

Sorry maryhelena, I can't see enough reason to prefer it.

If it's any consolation (and you may take credit for this if you like), I did recently suggest your idea as an interesting, pro-MJ possibility while briefly visiting Richard Carrier's blog.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.